A televised debate between a group of men (no woman, to be sure) bidding to be Uganda’s next chief executive o fficer? Good idea in the spirit of democratic practice. There was one last weekend, broadcast live on NTV-Uganda.
To what end, though, one must ask? I shall return to this later. Credit to the organisers; they deserve to be saluted for holding out faith in our quest for a democratic process of choosing the nation’s most important office holder – President of the Republic.
We last had a televised presidential debate, in fact the very first, in 2015 – ten years ago. It was attended by all candidates. There was none for the 2021 cycle.
This time, the main man, our ruler-for-life who has had a clasp on power for 40 years, the Ssabalwanyi (Chief Fighter) and General of the people’s revolution, Mr Yoweri Museveni, did not participate. Ostensibly due to scheduling conflict.
In 2015, Mr Museveni grudgingly took part in the debate, but only after imposing a set of demands and conditions on the organisers, including not fielding questions from the late Dr Shaka Ssali, one of the debate moderators. All said, Mr Museveni has little regard, if any, for his political challengers.
He does not believe they are worthy opponents and credible contenders for the nation’s top job. Thus, he cannot debate them, at least not in a presidential debate style. He would easily get irritated if Robert Kyagulanyi or Mugisha Muntu put him to task, on live television, to answer some tough questions about his record as president.
Instead of a structured debate, with quick questions and answers, back-and-forth arguments that can get feisty, Mr Museveni’s prefers a monologue setting where he delivers a winding lecture to a passive audience. No fact-checking, pushback or counterarguments.
As President, he believes he occupies a chiefly and divinely status, placing him above reproach, which in effect means he sees it as unacceptable being subject to rigorous and sustained questioning on live television. It is in that same spirit he views campaigns and election outcomes.
As I previously argued here, the five-year election cycle is an irritating ritual Mr Museveni entertains because it is the only way to lay claim to the international de rigueur of democracy.
But he keeps up with the irritation on condition that his opponents do not have the same freedom and resources necessary for a fair contest. He cannot countenance a levelled ground for free competition.
Much of what happens in the campaign environment and overall electoral landscape proceeds on his terms, which includes unilaterally appointing leadership of the body in charge of the election.
A televised debate, by contrast, would not be under his total control, even if he imposed terms and conditions as happened in 2015. It is territory he rather steers clear of.
There is a high possibility of coming off bruised, especially with sharp-edged moderators and opponents with the depth to chip away at the chinks in Mr Museveni’s armour.
In the broader scheme of things, then, is there value to a televised presidential debate in Uganda? Yes, theoretically.
Since a great deal of what we engage in is copy and paste from practices of Western liberal democracy, holding a televised debate tracks with the rest of the systems and processes we embraced.
In functioning democracies, not just in the West, televised debates can make or break candidates. Not in Uganda.
The essence of a debate is for different candidates to articulate competing visions and outline contrasting policies, thereby giving voters a menu of alternatives.
In countries with sharp partisan divides among, say, two major political parties as in Ghana, UK, and US, often there is a small but not insignificant portion of independent/undecided voters that needs to be persuaded by either side.
A televised debate is one way candidate can sway those voters. We do not have anything like that in Uganda today.
Our presidential elections are not decided on which candidate can succeed in persuading undecided voters or motivate those who would have stayed away to instead turn up at the polls.
In parts of rural Uganda, to get out people on polling day requires a patronage machinery for distributing basic consumables and outright money bribery.
At the polling station, the rigging machinery that delivers ballot staffing and misreporting of voter-tallies picks the baton from where the machinery of handing out soap, salt, sugar and money would have left off. To say this is not to be cynical, rather it is to be realistic: the real televised debate Uganda needs is how to redirect the current course and reimagine the future of the country.
In the past weeks of campaigning, the main Opposition challenger, Mr Robert Kyagulanyi, has been in running battles with security forces, getting teargassed and his supporters shot at.
Utterly pathetic scenes. It is dangerously disingenuous, at best foolhardy, to pretend that there is an ongoing contest for the nation’s presidency, which will be decided at the polls on January 15.